The Piasecki PA-97 Helistat was an American experimental heavy-lift aircraft, built by Piasecki by fastening four H-34J helicopters to a framework beneath a helium-inflated blimp envelope. The sole prototype was destroyed during a test flight, killing a test pilot and injuring another four in the course of a single incident in 1986.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_PA-97_Helistat

NSFW Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KY3A2HlbzQ - it's barely off the ground when it crashes at ~1:00.

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DogThatWentGorp@hexbear.net 31 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What a beautiful marriage of the two most dangerous aircraft ever conceived. They just needed the blades to rotate like an osprey and it would've been perfect.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 15 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I love this redditor's failed "Well actually..." attempt at defending the idea.

Hijacking the top comment since no one on this post looked up what this aircraft was for and as a result are just trying to dunk on it being a dumb idea.

This isn't a blimp. It's 4 helicopters using a blimp to cancel out their own weight in order to maximize heavy lift capacity. Its purpose was to be able to carry extremely heavy shit up mountains, which is something that a blimp, a single helicopter, or an airplane can't do.

From the wikipedia article:

The PA-97 was built under a 1980 U.S. Navy contract for the Forest Service to demonstrate a heavy vertical airlifter for harvesting timber from inaccessible terrain.

The best aircraft we have in this sector right now is probably the K-Max, and that lifts 1 or 2 logs at a time. You can make an argument for the Skycrane even though it isn't specifically made for logging. This thing was meant to lift an entire cabin's worth at once.

Also, someone lower down called out this accident being caused by a gust of wind - which is false. The aircraft dragged across the ground a bit due to the wind which created vibration from the landing gear, but the main brunt of the load that caused the structural failure was ground resonance, which effects ALL helicopters.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/v9romn/the_destruction_of_the_piasecki_pa97_helistat/ibz32xj/

[–] DogThatWentGorp@hexbear.net 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That last paragraph too oh my god

the main brunt of the load that caused the structural failure was ground resonance, which effects ALL helicopters

Yeah which makes it even more crazy that whoever built this monstrosity was allowed to do it. Anything that falls apart like that as soon as it's lifted has to involve skipping so much math to check forces there's just no way.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 20 points 2 weeks ago

I noticed that too. His "defense" and the crash itself reminds me of Richard Feynman's explanation about how cold weather impacted O-rings and caused the Challenger disaster. The crash coincidently also happened the same year.

NASA officials said that the chance of failure of the shuttle was about 1 in 100,000; Feynman found that this number was actually closer to 1 in 100. He also learned that rubber used to seal the solid rocket booster joints using O-rings, failed to expand when the temperature was at or below 32 degrees F (0 degrees C). The temperature at the time of the Challenger liftoff was 32 degrees F.

Feynman now believed that he had the solution, but to test it, he dropped a piece of the O-ring material, squeezed with a C-clamp to simulate the actual conditions of the shuttle, into a glass of ice water. Ice, of course, is 32 degrees F. At this point one needs to understand exactly what role the O-rings play in the solid rocket booster (SRB) joints. When the material in the SRB start to heat up, it expands and pushes against the sides of the SRB.

If there is an opening in a joint in the SRB, the gas tries to escape through that opening (think of it like water in a tea kettle escaping through the spout.) This leak in the Challenger’s SRB was easily visible as a small flicker in a launch photo. This flicker turned into a flame and began heating the fuel tank, which then ruptured. When this happened, the fuel tank released liquid hydrogen into the atmosphere where it exploded.

As Feynman explained, because the O-rings cannot expand in 32 degree weather, the gas finds gaps in the joints, which led to the explosion of the booster and then the shuttle itself.

https://feynman.com/science/the-challenger-disaster/

I don't see how four helicopters powering a blimp is in any way, shape, or form a sane idea.

Rant. The Wikipedia page for the disaster is shit because it's missing that.

[–] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hijacking the top comment to waste everybody's time to quote the Wikipedia article about paying more attention to me

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 12 points 2 weeks ago

I entirely forgot to mention that their name is VarietiesOfStupid.

[–] Owl@hexbear.net 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

something that a blimp, a single helicopter, or an airplane can't do.

Build a train.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

TBH, building a rail track up the mountain is absurdly hard.

[–] Owl@hexbear.net 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not just that, preemptively building a rail track up a mountain, in case we need to move something up that mountain at some later time.

I stand by my absurd proposal.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Railways demand very strict limits on the incline and the curvature of turns, which are the reason that tunnels are used so often, when railroads are built through mountains. And also you need to transport a lot of cargo, when building a railroad through mountains. Mountains are pretty much the worst case for railroads.

[–] Owl@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Comrade, the joke is that I'm proposing a bad idea.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

There are people, who would propose it unironically.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

Funicular.

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"No, you don't understand, this incredibly dangerous and unreliable experimental vehicle that can't even survive a single test flight wasn't designed for regular flights, it was designed to fly in some of the most dangerous flying conditions possible."

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

Peak redditor logic

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.

[–] supafuzz@hexbear.net 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

dudes just wanted to be a quadcopter together

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago

quadcopter
~~polycule~~

[–] culpritus@hexbear.net 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is the aeronautical equivalent of the floating house that capsized. And this thing was so poorly engineered, it failed before it even had a chance to tip over.

[–] buran@lemmy.today 6 points 2 weeks ago

Every libertarian artificial island project is stupid.

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago

Jesus Christ, it's reverse cantilevered?

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago

Piasecki Aircraft has built a total of 5 aircraft between 1959 and 2024. This was one of them. The company was founded after Frank Piasecki was ousted from Piasecki Helicopter. Piasecki Helicopter focused on multi rotor lift helicopters (frank wanted to pursue compound helicopters) and was acquired by Boeing in 1987, they went on to produce the famous "Chinook" helicopter.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 10 points 2 weeks ago

This is some whacky races shit.

[–] 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs@hexbear.net 10 points 2 weeks ago

The plans just say "All Copters Are Blimp" acab-2

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

How did anyone think this was a good idea?

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 9 points 2 weeks ago

I assume a lot of alcohol and cocaine was involved

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 6 points 2 weeks ago

Engineer A: What if... Hits bong wh-what if we like... Takes shot ww-we li-like make a DRONE out of HELICOPTERS?

Engineer B: It'd be way to heavy and wouldn't fly?

Engineer A: Finishes bag of edibles We'll attach it to a... snorts line BL-BLIMP!!!

Engineer B: Acid kicks in ...DuUUuuUuuUdeee!

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago

Wtf this is horrendous.

[–] Carl@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago

I was not expecting that specific failure mode.

[–] abc@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

looks cool as hell though

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: